[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

All we have are theories, and theory-filled threads are (to me) the best kind.
I think, as Ted points out, the numbers 6 and 12 are too prominent in the series compositions to be purely a coincidence.

But on the other hand, looking at that Obak sheet, I count 57 places where we can see a card and see the card positioned
above it in the same column. Out of those 57, there are 4 where if this sheet was miscut we'd see the same name at the
top and bottom of the card, and 53 where we'd see one name at the bottom and a different name at the top.

That kind of ratio is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I've observed in looking at T206s. With T206s the
vast vast majority of double-name cards have the same name at the top and the bottom of the card. Maybe if we imagine
something like the Obak sheet but with all the columns, however many there were for T206s, having the same player in vertical
columns and a few here and there that made up of different players, we might be close to how they really looked.
Might be. The problem is if we concretely determine there were 12 columns or 19 columns or some other number, how many
of those columns were the same player and how many were mixed? For that, I don't think anyone has the answer.